• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Harman Photo cryptic announcement/teaser

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, this is not the Ilford instagram account. It could have nothing to do with film. The website was registered 2 years ago.

In terms of resurrecting, though, they could be bringing back some Kentmere products.

There'd be no reason on earth to bring back Cibachrome - unless they wanted to go out of business.
 
Supercine said:
Perhaps it’s a means to separate from the commercial restrictions the company has when using the Ilford name?
Click to expand...

It's certainly a Harman thing, and there is a general understanding that there are some restrictions as to what they can put out under the Ilford name.
 
From a discussion elsewhere on the web:

"Was at an event on the weekend where Michelle Parr from Ilford/Harman gave a talk. She was a bit cryptic but said something about part of the deal of them using the Ilford name is that they're not allowed to produce an Ilford colour film... and then recommended we give this @Harmanphoto a follow on the socials."

Cannot speak to the veracity of this remark, but I thought it was credible.
 
mshchem said:
This is just annoying.
Click to expand...

It's juvenile marketing, but hopefully it will be short lived. If they leave that splash page up for more than a few days it'll just put people off. I'm looking forward to seeing what's behind the curtain.
 

Possibly a reference to colour film no less. It's all getting more incredible I don't suppose you know where this event was supposed to take place? Presumably it it was a big enough event there will be a transcript of her presentation and by the same token you'd expect somebody on YouTube to have a copy

Is it a fact that llford is not allowed to produce a colour film or is it just the case that it cannot call it Ilfocolor Anyway her allegedly paraphrased statement above might have nothing to do with colour film or any film

pentaxuser
 
pentaxuser said:
Is it a fact that llford is not allowed to produce a colour film or is it just the case that it cannot call it Ilfocolor Anyway her allegedly paraphrased statement above might have nothing to do with colour film or any film
Click to expand...

The latter.
Though another recent thread does reference an Ilford branded ECN-2 film - similar to the CineStill products involving Kodak motion picture film stock.
 
MattKing said:
The latter.
Though another recent thread does reference an Ilford branded ECN-2 film - similar to the CineStill products involving Kodak motion picture film stock.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Matt this is what I thought By the way what was your search engine that found the bird-like symbol I just tried Google again by typing in what you gave me and still nothing. Yes it gives me Harman technologies and other links to IlfordPhoto but that's all

Based on your second sentences I wonder what Cinestill will do if Ilford uses 800T as well

Can Í ask: Who else has found it by typing it in themselves and what their search engine was

Thanks

pentaxuser
 
pentaxuser said:
By the way what was your search engine that found the bird-like symbol
Click to expand...

I didn't use a search engine - I just clicked on the indicated link in the OP's first post:
 
Purchased Bergger and bringing Pancro 400 and BPF 200 sheet films back into production!

In all sizes!!!!!
 
MattKing said:
View attachment 351533I didn't use a search engine - I just clicked on the indicated link in the OP's first post:
Click to expand...
I did the same and got what you got. Might this be something on a social media site such as Instagram that uses that harmanphoto.co.uk as a reference or proxy within its own site

Unfortunately no-one else has yet replied to say that they have been or have not been able to get to the bird symbol by typing harmanphoto.co.uk into their search engines

pentaxuser
 
The search engines only returns this thread and one from reddit, from which I assume they got the phrase.

I suspect that the site is configured not to be indexed by the search engines, a common practice on unused sites. Until they change the configuration, no search engine will show it.
pentaxuser said:
Unfortunately no-one else has yet replied to say that they have been or have not been able to get to the bird symbol by typing harmanphoto.co.uk into their search engines

pentaxuser
Click to expand...

Carlos
 
pentaxuser said:
Unfortunately no-one else has yet replied to say that they have been or have not been able to get to the bird symbol by typing harmanphoto.co.uk into their search engines
Click to expand...

You usually don't type a web address into a search engine - see below, indicated with the grey arrow.
You type it into the address bar of your browser - see below, indicated with the red arrow..
Search engines don't look for web addresses, they look for web content.
 
I thought they had bought a company like Lucky or Tasma.

But I really secretly hope that they produce something I proposed to them years ago: bring back an Autochrome like process. But sans the potato starch.

When I contacted them, they rapidly told me it was impossible and turned it down. But sometimes ideas like that make their way from one department to the next until they find a good ear.
 

This explains why when I type William Shakespeare I get directed to Monty Python
 

We may have a terminology misunderstanding here which might well be my fault. I was referring to what I think is my web browser. I did type it in to the address bar of my browser which in my case is Google

There appears to be, from what you are saying, that there is/are separate search engine or engines the existence of which I have no knowledge

The main point still stands, does it not, that on my browser I could find no reference to this "bird"

pentaxuser
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Can I take it that you are serious about such hopes?

pentaxuser
 
pentaxuser said:
We may have a terminology misunderstanding here which might well be my fault. I was referring to what I think is my web browser. I did type it in to the address bar of my browser which in my case is Google
Click to expand...

To the best of my knowledge, there is no "Google" web browser. Chrome is the web browser associated with the Google search engine, but you can use the Google search engine with any browser that I am aware of.

The screen grab I posted shows the Google web page on the Chrome browser.
and here is the Google web page on the Microsoft Edge browser:


and here is the new harmanphoto.co.uk website on Edge as well:

check carefully that you typed the address exactly - including the https and the necessary slashes and : and .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Most browsers will have google as at least an option for the default search engine, I think.
In Firefox, there's an easy setting that lets you have two bars (one for search, and one for directly entering/displaying a URL) or one combined bar which does both; but if I set it to have two bars, the address bar still says 'Search with Google or enter address', so what kind of option is that...
So I have the combined bar. If I don't type a URL correctly it does a search with a nonsense keyword; hardly a disaster but irritating. But I rarely type a URL; I occasionally copy-and-paste one.
IIRC Internet Explorer had a setting 'Do not search from the address bar'.


Xylo said:
bring back an Autochrome like process
Click to expand...
Dufaycolor would be fun, but I'm not sure I'd use much of it.
 
MattKing said:
To the best of my knowledge, there is no "Google" web browser
Click to expand...

I think there is a Google app, which is essentially a browser, for phones and tablets.

pentaxuser said:
The main point still stands, does it not, that on my browser I could find no reference to this "bird"
Click to expand...

I have no idea what's happening with your browser, but I loaded the site, the image is there. There's nothing unusual about it. Try clicking this: harmanphoto.co.uk.
 

Harman can make what they like. B&W film, colour film, baby food, lingerie.

They own the license to use the Ilford name and logo on B&W traditional film products, and directly related products. Hence the entire range of Ilford film survives, papers, chemicals and a new product such as the dark tent.

They specifically do not have the licence to produce colour imaging products under the Ilford name, that is with the "other" Ilford (Ilford Imaging, who do mostly inkjet material but were also connected to the recent colour film marketed as Ilford and made by someone else). Harman could manufacture a colour film, or market one manufactured by someone else....but not under the Ilford or Ilfocolor or similar name. They could potentially resurrect an old Ilford product such as Ilfocolor or Cibachrome but would have to find another name to brand it. Harman is as good as any.
 
I wonder if they might be considering moving all their business under a multi-segment Harman umbrella - Ilford and Kentmere in one segment, Paterson (which they distribute) in another, and other products in other segments?
 
MattKing said:
I wonder if they might be considering moving all their business under a multi-segment Harman umbrella - Ilford and Kentmere in one segment, Paterson (which they distribute) in another, and other products in other segments?
Click to expand...

Possible - but I doubt they would try to generate hype about that (and doesn't explain the phoenix).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register